Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Injunction Against Unauthorized Streaming of ICC World Cup Cricket Matches: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the High Court of Delhi has granted an injunction to restrain the unauthorized dissemination and broadcast of ICC World Cup cricket matches. The judgment, delivered on September 27, 2023, comes in response to a plea by Plaintiffs Star India Private Limited and Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., seeking protection against illegal streaming and communication of the prestigious sporting event.

The court observed, "Any injunction granted by a Court of law ought to be effective in nature," highlighting the urgency of protecting the rights of the content holders. It further stated, "The rights of IP holders cannot be rendered redundant in the virtual world, and the enforcement of rights on the internet has to be real and effective."

The Plaintiffs, who hold exclusive global media rights for various ICC events, expressed concerns that rogue websites could potentially undermine their rights and revenues by streaming the matches without authorization. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction and noted the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiffs.

Under the judgment, Defendant Nos. 1 to 9, primarily rogue websites, are restrained from communicating, screening, or disseminating any part of the ICC World Cup Cricket matches on any electronic or digital platform. Domain Name Registrars have been directed to lock and suspend these rogue websites, while ISPs/Telephone Service Providers are ordered to block them. The Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology are also required to issue blocking orders for illegal streaming websites.

Recognizing the dynamic nature of online infringement, the court granted Plaintiffs the liberty to promptly inform authorities of any new rogue websites that may emerge during the event for immediate blocking. Non-infringing websites may approach the court for a modification of the injunction if they provide an undertaking not to engage in the unauthorized dissemination of ICC World Cup content.

The judgment reflects the evolving landscape of intellectual property protection in the digital age, emphasizing the need for swift and effective remedies to combat online piracy of sporting events and copyrighted content. The court's decision aligns with recent developments in intellectual property law and international recommendations for combating online piracy of live events.

This landmark judgment not only safeguards the interests of content holders but also sets a precedent for addressing digital piracy in real-time, ensuring that the rights of intellectual property owners are protected and enforced effectively in the virtual realm.

Representing Advocates, Mr. Sidharth Chopra and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, played pivotal roles in presenting the case and securing this significant legal victory for the Plaintiffs.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2023

STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED  & ANR. vs JIOLIVE.TV & ORS.

Latest Legal News